Indigenous Australian people, their defence of the dead and native title

Author(s):  
PAUL TURNBULL
Arts ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 32
Author(s):  
Marie Geissler

This paper investigates a select number of examples in which largely non-literate First Nation peoples of Australia, like some First Nations peoples around the world, when faced with a judicial challenge to present evidence in court to support their land title claim, have drawn on their cultural materials as supporting evidence. Specifically, the text highlights the effective agency of indigenous visual expression as a communication tool within the Australian legal system. Further, it evaluates this history within an indigenous Australian art context, instancing where of visual art, including drawings and paintings, has been successfully used to support the main evidence in native title land claims. The focus is on three case studies, each differentiated by its distinct medium, commonly used in indigenous contemporary art—namely, ink/watercolours on paper, (Case study 1—the Mabo drawings of 1992), acrylics on canvas (Case study 2—the Ngurrara 11 canvas 1997) and ochre on bark, (Case study 3—The Saltwater Bark Collection 1997 (onwards)). The differentiation in the stylistic character of these visual presentations is evaluated within the context of being either a non-indigenous tradition (e.g., represented as European-like diagrams or sketches to detail areas and boundaries of the claim sites in question) or by an indigenous expressive context (e.g., the evidence of the claim is presented using traditionally inspired indigenous symbols relating to the claimant’s lands. These latter images are adaptations of the secret sacred symbols used in ceremonies and painting, but expressed in a form that complies with traditional protocols protecting secret, sacred knowledge). The following text details how such visual presentations in the aforementioned cases were used and accepted as legitimate legal instruments, on which Australian courts based their legal determinations of the native land title.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jo Lampert

The goals of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (AEP), the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the broader implications of the High Court's Native Title decision place considerable pressure on the higher education system to move rapidly to achieve equity in access, participation and outcomes for Indigenous Australians and non-Indigenous Australians.


2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-18
Author(s):  
Paul Turnbull

In this article, I discuss how returns of Ancestral Remains of Indigenous Australian communities from overseas museums and other scientific institutions since the early 1990s have occurred in the context of changing Australian government repatriation policies and practices. The article then highlights how the past three decades have seen numerous instances of the return of Ancestral Remains to their community proving difficult and stressful because of the loss of ancestral lands, life-ways and the experience of colonial subjugation. As I explain, returning the dead has challenged the living by requiring them to address questions of authority, power and historical legacies of colonialism, notably in the case of those communities seeking the restoration of ownership of their ancestral country within the framework of Australia’s current national and state land laws.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-36
Author(s):  
Clemence Due ◽  
Damien W Riggs

This article examines how Indigenous Australians' claims to their land are represented in the mainstream, non-Indigenous Australian media. In so doing, the article explores the common tropes available to non-Indigenous Australians in relation to Indigenous ownership of land, and in particular the native title system. It is argued that whilst initial land claims are discussed in detail within the media from a variety of perspectives, subsequent Indigenous land use agreements are most commonly reported upon in terms of business and economic concerns, with 'failed' agreements represented as impediments to 'development'. Thus, whilst the claims of Indigenous Australians to their land are sometimes reported positively by the media, this is only insofar as native title does not impede business development, which is frequently represented as the way in which land ultimately ought to be used. Thus non-Indigenous readers are left with an image of native title whereby initial land claims are considered not to be threatening, but only to the extent that subsequent use of the land still fits a white Australian image of 'development'.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document